If you told us what you wanted to do remotely. Watch video? Browse the web? Play games?

Essentially what you need is what you explicitly state you do not want: a console, Steam Machine, etc. Maybe you could get away with a Raspberry Pi with a wifi adapter and Chrome remote desktop or Team Viewer. It might work for gaming if you can install the Steam client on it, and you should be able to stream video (probably better off putting video files into a shared folder or USB stick and playing them locally).

But no, there is no cheap transmitter-like device that accomplishes solely what you're looking for. You basically need some kind of computer attached to your downstairs TV that can connect to your main machine via wifi. It doesn't need to be an expensive computer, but it still needs to be a computer of some kind, with wifi and USB ports capable of supporting a wired mouse and keyboard. Cheapest solution in my mind is a Raspberry Pi. Next up would be an inexpensive/older laptop or computer.

1.) Horrible aesthetic design.2.) Lack of charging stations unless you're in or near a big city (the only ones around here are at big car dealerships, and none currently at any of the Interstate rest stops).3.) Short maximum distance coupled with long charge times makes any kind of long-distance road trip a nightmare.4.) Trading my gasoline bill for a huge increase in my electric bill and realizing I'm not actually saving any money.5.) Costs more than a comparable gasoline-powered vehicle.

"We examined the market and realized there is no way we can charge 3x what everyone else charges and expect to sell a significant amount of units. If Samsung and SONY can't do it, we sure as shit can't."

I pretty much agree with your sentiments, and that other people may not think the way I do, and that's cool. Obviously a lot of sites rely on advertising to survive, and since they are surviving *someone* is seeing/watching those ads. It's just not me. And honestly, not to sound like an ass, but as long as I don't need to see them I'm good.

And I'll even admit there are a few (VERY few) sites where I don't block the ads because I want to support the site and the ads are extremely unobtrusive, so I can live with that. I use a lot of ad-supported apps on my phone/tablet, and I'm generally ok with that too so long as the ad is unobtrusive (I remember trying to play Angry Birds and the ads popped up in such a way that made the game impossible to play; deleted that shit real quick and never looked back). I have a buddy who sells a few basic Android apps and originally went with a 99 cent price with no ads. He wasn't getting a lot of purchases and then decided to offer a free version with ads and he makes over 10x the amount of money just from those small little popup ads. So, hey, more power to him.

For now most of the app ads are unobtrusive, but the web was once like that too. When things start to change and get out of control that's when it's going to be time to look into adblockers for my phone and tablet.

This. I don't want to see ads, I'm sick to death of seeing ads, and I'll do everything in my power not to. If that means the end of the web, I don't care. There isn't a single solitary website I can't live without.

The thing that gets me is that even though advertisers know full well we're all sick to death of advertising and don't want to see it they are doing everything they can to shove it down our throats whether we like it or not. And y'know what, If I'm forced to somehow sit thru an ad when I don't want to (I recently tried to watch a video at CBS.com, and if you block the ads you can't watch the program) I'm either going to a.) mute the sound and switch the tab till the ad is over, or b.) make note of the advertiser and NEVER patronize them simply because they forced me to sit thru an ad I had no interest in seeing. In most cases I will do both.

Yeah, I stopped after the first paragraph. If you believe that pizza and Big Macs are "meals" and strawberries and almonds are "luxuries" you need medication. I dare say if people ate more of the latter and less of the former we'd have a lot less obesity in this country. Strawberries and almonds certainly are not a luxury. Fruit and nuts are essential parts of a healthy diet whereas pizza and Big Macs are the antithesis of one.

What little of your "argument" I did read is fallacial at best, ridiculous at worst, and sorry, but I don't argue with stupid or crazy. Carry on.

Considering your inane rant was a non sequitur strawman argument I am not required to argue its merits, because by definition is has none. But ok, sure, I'll humor you:

First off, strawberries aren't food? Since when? And pizza and Big Macs are?

Whatever difficulties there are in picking strawberries are irrelevant, as the production of every food substance has it's own set of challenges. Pizza dough has to be used when it's thawed and can't be refrozen. Same with hamburger. Cheese needs to be refrigerated. French fries can only be up to 2 hours old and then need to be pitched. Buns have to be thrown out once they get stale, and so on. None of which are germane to the discussion of wages.

And don't you think, following your trainwreck of thought, that if strawberries aren't priced fairly due to slave wages, that pizza and Big Macs also are not priced fairly due to the slave wages paid to make them? Not to mention the grade-z ingredients used? But again, irrelevant to the discussion of wages as the production of strawberries via slave wages is no different than the production of any other product via slave wages. And none of this has anything to do with almonds.

I laid out very specific economic points, each of which you ignored and then went on a rant about how delicate and luxurious strawberries are. Which not only makes no sense, it's completely irrelevant to the discussion and not even close to being on topic. If anything you actually proved my point -- if strawberries are so difficult to pick, and so delicate, one would think you'd need skilled labor to do it correctly and efficiently. And skilled labor doesn't come cheap. And I'm betting that paying your workers $25/hr + benefits is still cheaper than watching your entire crop shrivel and die because you can't find anyone willing to work for less. Let's also remember we're not talking about a little mom and pop farm here, the farm from the article is one of the biggest producers of strawberries -- most certainly a multi-million dollar enterprise whose top men I'm sure get paid very handsomely.